Can "blood" help make a superstar?

[Savion83]

After watching Joe Henning aka Michael Migi....whatever bleed from the mouth last night on NXT. It had me thinking, thinking for one that the ref for once didn't stop the match just to clean up the blood from Joe Henning's mouth, which is good. Because now that the WWE is rated "PG" we've seen very little to no blood on WWE TV pay per view or not. Which we've seen last year at the "Breaking Point" PPV were the match between John Cena vs. Randy Orton for the WWE championship was stop for a short period because Cena had been cut open by Orton and started to bleed and paramedics had to patch Cena up.

But can bleeding help make a star in not just the WWE, but wrestling period? Let's use "the grestest superstar in WWE history", STONE COLD STEVE AUSTIN as a example.

In 1996 at the King of the Ring PPV where Stone Cold faced Mark Mero in the semi finals, Mero busted open Austin with a kick to the mouth cutting open Stone Cold. Austin received sixteen stitches in his mouth before returning to action to win that years King of the Ring torney by defeating both Mark Mero and Jake Roberts in the same night.

A year later at Wrestlemania 13 vs. Bret Hart in the infamous submission match. When the Hitman put Austin in the sharpshooter hold and Austin had beeb bleeding from the head and the blood rapidly gushed from the dome of Stone Cold (the WWF/E made a SCSA T-Shirt from that picture, it made alot of money lol!). And from there on going into the "atittude era" in the WWF/E whenever you saw Stone Cold Steve Austin busted up bleeding you had a epic moment just from that! And it helped make SCSA the legend that he is today! A WWE Hall of Famer!

So once again I gotta ask the question despite the WWE-PG. Can bleeding help make a star a MEGASTAR? Or we can ask Steve Austin himself???

 

[Nikeo]

No, blood can neither make a superstar 'nor a moment. It hasn't helped anyone in TNA.

Blood can, however, enhance a moment which in turn can create a superstar. You cannot simply rely on blood to get the job done, if it doesn't fit the moment it does nothing but reduce the effectiveness of blood to the point where it means nothing. Further, the Austin image wasn't an epic moment simply because of the blood, it was epic because the match was phenomenal, the angle was amazing and it fit the moment. Had both the angle and the match been average the blood wouldn't have made any difference.

 

[JT2005]

I think blood can help paint a picture that sticks out in our minds of certain superstars if used during the right times. However there are times it just gets ridiculous. There were times when hogan or flair would be bleeding like crazy after a punch. Blood isn't all that wrestling is about. A real wrestling match tells a story. All blood can do is emphasize part of a match, but it cant tell the whole story. To be honest I think some of the old timers just used blood, because it caught people's attention faster and meant less work they had to do.

just my opinion

 

[DirtyJosé]

Bleeding didn't make Steve Austin a star. This is just as bad as your anti-foreigners thread.

Blood is not a necessary part of wrestling. While I feel WWE was doing itself no favors in stopping matches for tiny cuts, blading in this day and age is just obvious and stupid. I don't need bleeding to show me someone just got their ass kicked, and I don't need bleeding to tell me how intense a feud is: if the fuckers were doing their jobs right, I could gather that information from the way the match unfolded. Watching someone drop to blade ruins any and all immersion into the match I might have had.

 

[JGlass]

Blood is ketchup to the hamburger that is professional wrestling. (I am SO proud of that metaphor)

Blood is not what made Steve Austin's Wrestlemania 13 match, him not tapping out was what made him a legend.

A crimson mask is not what gave Mick Foley the image he maintained for years, it was his willingness to jump through a table wrapped in barbed wire, fall off a 20 foot cage, or be chokeslammed onto a bed of thumbtacks that did it.

Tommy Dreamer is not a hardcore legend because he dawned a facefull of blood, it's the fact he fought through it until he couldn't fight no more.

The only career that may have been made by blood would be that of Sandman. The only reason he was so over is because he was enough of a maniac to make himself bleed by repeatedly whacking himself in the head with a beer can. Fucking maniac.

Blood is just garnish that helps the situation look more real, but it's the situation and how the superstars act during it that make their careers.

 

[CJ The Pirate]

Blood is just blood. It doesn't have any special powers or cause any effects to the wrestlers performance. It's just blood. I don't miss it. It doesn't bother me that matches are stopped for blood and it wouldn't bother me to see another crimson mask.

I'm of the opinion, like DirtyJose, that blading is a ridiculous part of the sport. I'm an MMA fan, Boxing fan, Regularly help to organise local Muay Thai events and, living in the North West of England, I've seen plenty of fights break out on the streets. I've never, ever seen anyone with a crimson mask in a real fight. Those scenes of Flair, Austin and Triple H where their face is just covered in blood are nonsensical and completly unecessary.

To actually ask this question is ridiculous. McGillicutty (that is his ring name, you're not cool just because you know who his dad is) bled. So what? You bleed. I bleed. We All bleed. It makes him no different to any of us. Guess what, neither you or I are superstars because of it.

 

[Whatsinaname696]

Blood is whatever ya take it to be, can it help make a star? hell yeah, can having in ring ability or charisma and mic skills? mmhmm can having a unique or overwhelming look? yup can having ties to the boss/bosses or being friends with celebs or seen in movies? putting ya life/body on the line (or jus shortening ya life) by taking some insanely dangerous spots, being able to pull off being a great heel AND face? ... :: nod :: but rarely does having or doing only any one of these things get you to be a mega star

 

[MoRtAnDaD]

I think that anything is absolute, and everything makes a superstar.

You cant just rely on blood, mic, ring skills, charisma or whatever attribute by itself. It has to be package, a well done package in the right moment.

The classic image of austin bleeding in WM13, is great, not for the blood itself but for everything around it. And yes, blood was the final touch to create "a moment".

Blood is just an element, as everything else on wrestling, well used and with a purpouse it pays big time, but blood for the sake of blood... or ladders for the sake of ladders, or a chair shot for the sake of it... thats stupid and empty.

take blood as another resource while you are telling a story or adding drama to a bigger picture (not everytime, just in the right moment), just a resource.

 

[cmillsa1]

First off dirtyjose is ignorant. First off, im not a fan of the over use of blood, but if a man gets hit in the head with a chair, yeah he might bleed.....duh.

When a wrestler blades themselves is usually the only time one will bleed. But they dont do that anymore because its pretty dumb. But if they get a small cut from something that warrants the blood, let it be.

 

[The Best At What I Do]

Hahaha great metaphor JGlass.

But to answer your question: No, blood will not make a superstar. Just look at TNA, everybody's bleeding there every week but I still see no superstars.

Blood can help if used properly however. If added to a defining moment, such as in your Stone Cold example, blood can emphasize the pain, determination or fight in a wrestler. But blood spewing just for the sake of having blood spewing does nothing for anybody.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Blleding in a match alone does not make a great match or make the wrestler bleeding a superstar, typically you need a great gimmick backed up by a work rate and charisma (IE interview skills) to be a superstar, especially one that lasts for a decade as a top draw, not just a flash in the pan.

Austin certainly had a great gimmick, and he did bleed on occassion, but he had tremendous matches without blood and his interviews were classics. Flair in his heyday would bleed to convince the audience how powerful his opponent was, making his inevitable heel bad guy escape more impressive, it added to the moment but many of his most memorable matches against Ricky Steamboat in 89, Barry Whyndam in 87, Royal Rumble 92, etc had no blood. He definately had a great gimmick and again, killer promos.

Hulk Hogan was never big on bleeding either, he may not have had the in ring skills that Flair and Austin had but he did know how to work a crowd during a match, making the most of what he could do, great gimmick, great mic work, and realistically the biggest star the industry has ever seen.

I can think of a lot of guys who had no trouble bleeding but they were marginal performers and never reached superstar status, they were at best cult figures, at worst career mid carders who's claim to fame was how many superstars they were beaten by.

 

[TCBT]

Telling a story in the ring is what makes a good match. And in turn makes a star. Bleeding or not, the match Stone Cold had against Bret Hart would've been a classic bout. The story the wrestlers told was everything.

We are in the cusps of watching a group of 7 nobodies become a force in the WWE, some are becoming main eventers, and not one drop of blood was shed.

 

[DirtyJosé]

First off dirtyjose is ignorant. First off,

Wait, wait, wait. How do you say "first off" twice? Like, which one is first off? And you're calling me ignorant. Lulz.

im not a fan of the over use of blood, but if a man gets hit in the head with a chair, yeah he might bleed.....duh.

First of all, I didn't say anything about chair shots, did I? Go back and actually read.

Second of all (see how that works? Now you learned something!), WWE doesn't do chair shots to the head anymore because willingly getting a concussion is stupid and not worth the risk.

When a wrestler blades themselves is usually the only time one will bleed. But they dont do that anymore because its pretty dumb. But if they get a small cut from something that warrants the blood, let it be.

Didn't I say that already? Yeah, I did. Right there where I said it was foolish to pause a match for a small cut. Of course, if you could actually read, you'd have seen that.

 

[Cookie14]

If a wrestler is able to carry off a decent story during the match then there is no need for them to bleed. Some of the best wrestlers hardly ever bleed, unless their opponent is not up to the same standard of in-ring story telling.

Think about it, how many matches involving Bret Hart, Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Kurt Angle etc involved any blood??

Hogan and Flair hardly ever used to bleed either, until they reached the later stages of their careers where thay could no longer go as well in the ring.

I remember a time when HHH bled in every PPV for about 18 months. I can't remember a single match from that time because it had all become so routine, over-used.

In moderation, it can add to a moment. Too often, it loses effect. No blood doesn't take anything away unless they stop the match when someone bleeds

 

[Buster]

I would have to agree with the OP that blood CAN HELP make a superstar.

Help is the important word here, blood of course isn’t the sole reason, but we have seen it far too many times for it to be just coincidence.

As the OP states, Austin vs. Bret is a fine example, while Austin not submitting was the important aspect of the match, the blood magnified the moment and made it feel as if Austin was the toughest guy around.

Personally John Cena also gained a lot of credibility when he bled heavily against JBL.

HHH vs. Cactus Jack (royal rumble 2000), for many including myself, a lot of people didn’t really see or know if HHH was in his right place to be champ, After this epic match in which both participants brought the best out of each other it was HHH that came out looking like "The Game" and justified his gimmick and push.

WWE would later go on and use Foley in a similar fashion to push both Edge and Randy Orton to the main event. Although these 3 wrestlers (Edge, Orton, and HHH) had the quality and were credible, it was the hardcore aspect of these matches, against a guy famous for being in death matches, and their willingness to bleed for the cause that solidified their futures within the company.

If guys like Sheamus, Swagger and Drew McIntyre had a Foley like match in which they spilt a little claret, I’m sure they would seem a lot more credible in the same way HHH, Edge and Orton were. But of course it’s a different WWE today.

 

[CJ The Pirate]

Help is the important word here, blood of course isn’t the sole reason, but we have seen it far too many times for it to be just coincidence.

I have to completely disagree with this. Just because blood is involved matches featuring the superstars you mentioned, that also goes hand in hand with the fact that they all featured highly on the card whenever it happened.

The only match I can really think of where blood helped tell a story was Austin/ Hart and even then, the blood wasn't necessary. The thing we took from that night was that Austin is a tough sob. He was beaten, battered and bloodied and still he fought and through a combination of tiredness and blood loss, he couldn't stop Bret locking in the Sharpshooter eventually passing out due to the pain. The scene of the crimson face of Austin screaming in agony has been used ever since, although less now we have reached PG. So sure, the blood helped in that scenario but Austin was good enough a worker to make us realise how tough he was without having to bleed. Again, I find myself referencing DirtyJose:

if the fuckers were doing their jobs right, I could gather that information from the way the match unfolded.

Austin, The Rock, Mankind, Undertaker, Flair, Triple H, Rikishi... VINCE MCMAHON... They've all done the crimson mask. How about D'lo Brown? Or Bart Gunn? Marc Mero? No, none of them did any blood and nor did they ever truly succeed, just fading into history. Does that justify your point? No. Because then we have guys like Viscera, Mark Henry, Goldust, Funaki and William Regal. Guys who have never bled, never been at the big one but all have had fantastic careers.

The reason is that blood came with the high profile match. It only made the matches look more dangerous. Those matches came with the high profile feuds. To be in one of those high profile feuds... first, you need to be a superstar.

If guys like Sheamus, Swagger and Drew McIntyre had a Foley like match in which they spilt a little claret, I’m sure they would seem a lot more credible in the same way HHH, Edge and Orton were. But of course it’s a different WWE today.

As I said in an earlier post, I am a fan of MMA, Boxing and Muay Thai. Often, guys get cut and most of the time it is cleaned up straight away if the blood is flowing. Never does it ever happen that a guy is messed up so bad that his face is bright red. That isn't a real thing. That is caused by combining blood with the sweat that comes naturally from a long, action packed fight.

And finally, if anyone needs any further arguement against blading. Just look at Abdullah the Butcher's forehead.

 

[OutsiderDX]

I think in once instant blood alone can make a superstar. That would be in the women's division.

If done properly with epic build-up, a diva who blades for the first time...turning out the red fountain... wearing the crimson mask... can become a superstar.

A diva's version of Austin vs Hart @ WM 13 or Jericho vs HBK at GAB... only with the bloody diva winning despite being in a pool of red.

That could earn the respect of many fans and turn a diva into a superstar.

 

[MikeJames]

Blood is good if used properly. For instance, in a steel cage match and a persons face is rubbed against the cage, blood would work. Someone getting smashed in the face by a ladder, would work and even in a real good match, if someone got bloody from some sort of face to the mat move, that would work. Like others have said, it can help enhance a match and bring a middle of the road wrestler over the top, but blood alone can't do it no matter how much the wrestler bleeds....

 

[kris8524]

Bleeding didn't make Steve Austin a star. This is just as bad as your anti-foreigners thread.

Blood is not a necessary part of wrestling. While I feel WWE was doing itself no favors in stopping matches for tiny cuts, blading in this day and age is just obvious and stupid. I don't need bleeding to show me someone just got their ass kicked, and I don't need bleeding to tell me how intense a feud is: if the fuckers were doing their jobs right, I could gather that information from the way the match unfolded. Watching someone drop to blade ruins any and all immersion into the match I might have had.

First off, Austin bleeding in the sharpshooter is what pushed people over to respect him to create the first real tweener that got over. It didnt make Austin a star, but it did sling shot is career past a few steps and made it easier and quicker for him to get over.

 

[DirtyJosé]

First off, Austin bleeding in the sharpshooter is what pushed people over to respect him to create the first real tweener that got over. It didnt make Austin a star, but it did sling shot is career past a few steps and made it easier and quicker for him to get over.

Damnit, again. How do you say first off, and then never have a second point?

It wasn't the blood, it was the match. The blood was a garnish, and really Austin would have got over with or without it. Certainly the image of him gushing blood from his head made an impact, but the story of the night was the single greatest double turn in the business, not Austin bleeding. Blood doesn't tell a story, it's just an unnecessary prop.

 

[ATT]

Damnit, again. How do you say first off, and then never have a second point?

It wasn't the blood, it was the match. The blood was a garnish, and really Austin would have got over with or without it. Certainly the image of him gushing blood from his head made an impact, but the story of the night was the single greatest double turn in the business, not Austin bleeding. Blood doesn't tell a story, it's just an unnecessary prop.

That might be the case but the blood is what sold the "Blood From A Stone" shirts. Maybe it was because I was younger when that happened but watching that blood dripping made it so much more powerful. The double turn was going to happen anyway but that made it standout. If it was just a regular sharpshooter and passing out I do not believe it would have been that remembered. Again that is my opinion.

 

[mayankeagle]

Stone Cold's gimmick also had a major impact on his success, it was just not blood. If you want to consider a name which made success simply based on blood, its got to be Mankind. Nobody shed as much blood as he did to become famous and that is what he became popular for becoming one of the greatest hardcore legends. Who will forget those infamous Hell in a Cell falls and the thumbtacks, and everything else which followed in his subsequent hardcore matches?

 

[Savion83]

I agree that DirtyJose is ignorant.

But I think blood can be a factor in the WWE if used the right way. I mean Stone Cold Steve Austin's fueds were revolved around blood. Like his "first blood" matches against Kane in 1998 for the WWF/E title, and against Booker T on Smackdown in early 2002.

Now from what it looks like in the spoilers heading into the "Hell in a Cell" PPV on the Smackdown side. The Undertaker will face Kane for the WHC inside HIAC. Now you can't tell for a second that their would not be blood shead in that kind of match-up!

But yeah, blood can be brought back in the WWE if used the right way.

 

[DirtyJosé]

That might be the case but the blood is what sold the "Blood From A Stone" shirts. Maybe it was because I was younger when that happened but watching that blood dripping made it so much more powerful. The double turn was going to happen anyway but that made it standout. If it was just a regular sharpshooter and passing out I do not believe it would have been that remembered. Again that is my opinion.

Because we all remember Austin for that shirt and not the millions and millions and millions of the "Austin 3:16" shirts.

I agree that DirtyJose is ignorant.

Quiet you. You have no room to talk. Do you still hate the foreigners, by the way?

But I think blood can be a factor in the WWE if used the right way. I mean Stone Cold Steve Austin's fueds were revolved around blood. Like his "first blood" matches against Kane in 1998 for the WWF/E title, and against Booker T on Smackdown in early 2002.

Two feuds, four years apart. Surely you have more evidence than this? I mean, in those four years, Austin took part in many many other feuds. Were they all based around profuse bleeding too? Once again, you don't know what you are talking about.

Now from what it looks like in the spoilers heading into the "Hell in a Cell" PPV on the Smackdown side. The Undertaker will face Kane for the WHC inside HIAC. Now you can't tell for a second that their would not be blood shead in that kind of match-up!

Silly, you really shouldn't be talking about spoilers outside of the cage.

 

[YEDemon]

If blood alone could make superstars, then the garbage wrestling feds like CZW would've built up enough of a fanbase to surpass the WWE.

I think, as many have said, that blood can help, but it alone will not make a superstar. The crimson mask is a cool sight every once in a while, but it has no place if the match isn't already telling a story that warrants it.